Was 911 an Inside Job?

Well, I was an engineer for a while, and some habits are hard to kick. As for the towers, according to everything I have read, they were built to withstand the impact of a 707, which is about half the mass of a 747 (and about 10% slower cruising speed). The obvious answer is often the best. Why did the towers fall? Because to big ass jets crashed into them. Everything else is searching for solutions when the best one is staring you right in the face. Arguing that the WTC would be fine even if 10,000lbs of bombs were dropped on it is just being stubborn.

 

bawh the only thing I will say is that anybody that believes this crap needs to get their head examined and is part of our country's biggest problem.

One that is taking over our country slowly and sadly.

That is

the Pussification of America.

I'm out

 

Before learning of the lies the government told the people to get into the war in Iraq, I thought the notion of an inside job was somewhat wacko, but since the truth of the war has come out- I don't see it entirely implausible the government might be lying to us again.

Trusting government blindly has proven to be an unwise strategy for the common folk over the course of history.

 

Actually 767.

But they did withstand the impact. It was the impact + explosion + ensuing fire that brought them down.

Engineers and scientists have agreed on their collaspse. But of course...it's all a conspiracy

 

People who say it was an inside job are as bad as the Holocaust deniers in my book, the book of Mr. Clutch.

 

So the two planes crashing into the world trade center didn't look a little weird to you?

And how do you think the towers should have fallen? Tipped over? Do you realize that isn't possible?

And you do realize the buildings didn't collapse demolition style as demonstrated by the amount of wreakage around the site??? Do you know how many other buildings was damage? Did you notice that every building in the complex was destroyed???

Do you believe that JFK was shot by aliens who impersonate Elvis?

 

were firefighters, police and emt running around in new orleans saying the dikes were bombed or was that just rumors started by random people?

on 9/11 we have firefighters, police and emt saying that there is a bomb in building 7 and everyone needs to clear out. why would they have been saying this and how would they have known that building 7 was about to fall?

actually, detectives will tell you that evidence is most credible when it comes right after the incident, before people have time to think about it and it is still fresh in their minds. in the immediate aftermath you are getting their unfiltered account. that is why detectives will try to interview people as soon as possible.

 

link?

why did the owner of the twin towers and building 7, larry silverstein, say that they made the decision to "pull" building 7?

why were firefighters, police and emt telling people to clear out b/c there was a bomb in the building and it was coming down?

 

actually, building 7 is about 100 yards from the twin towers and there are several closer buildings which did not collapse, such as wtc buildings 5 and 6.

building 7 was the only one actually on a different block than the other wtc buildings.



isnt it an odd coincidence that the only buildings which fell were ones owned by larry silverstein, who only months earlier had taken out a mulit-billion dollar insurance policy on them?

i believe my own eyes more than my government.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0gElTyejWs4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0gElTyejWs4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

Not always, but usually. As William of Ockham said, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In other words, all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually correct.

Here you go. That mentions both the need to rebuild the ConEd substation that was located in building 7 and the 6,000 gallon diesel tank 15 ft above the ground floor. It also mentions that the Fire Department warned that

Pull building 7, or pull "it"? As I mentioned before, it would not be unreasonable to think the it being referred to in what I have seen was the team of first responders, not necessarily the building itself.

Because they found out that fires had or were reaching the big "bomb" or 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tank that if it caught fire would produce disaster? When they are demolishing old buildings on purpose, they don't use one bomb, they set up a bunch of smaller charges. So saying there was "a bomb" would point away from that scenario, because then there would be bombs in the building.

 

This was not planned demolition style. Geez. When the frame of the building buckled on the floor of impact, the remaining floors gave way to this thing called gravity. When those upper floors fell upon the lower floors, they gave way...one at a time.

This is simple physics really.

 

Application of 'common sense' arguments about expectations are mistaken when applied to situations that are so far outside the realm of common experience.

You see the same 'appeals to common sense' type of arguments with (among other things) the supposedly faked moon-landings, where people talk about how the flag 'should' react in a vacuum, or discussing the nature of shadows on the moon. Any of these types of appeals to how you expect a building ‘should’ react are inherently suspect.

When you've seen 75 other buildings hit with jet airliners, then maybe your expectations of what should happen will be worth listening to.

As far as the noise, my first guess would be noise from tensile failure which should sound as a loud boom when the metal snaps:

[rquoter]
After a metal has been loaded to its yield strength it begins to "neck" as the cross-sectional area of the specimen decreases due to plastic flow. When necking becomes substantial, it may cause a reversal of the engineering stress-strain curve, where decreasing stress correlates to increasing strain because of geometric effects. This is because the engineering stress and engineering strain are calculated assuming the original cross-sectional area before necking. If the graph is plotted in terms of true stress and true strain the curve will always slope upwards and never reverse, as true stress is corrected for the decrease in cross-sectional area. Necking is not observed for materials loaded in compression. The peak stress on the engineering stress-strain curve is known the ultimate tensile strength. After a period of necking, the material will rupture and the stored elastic energy is released as noise and heat. The stress on the material at the time of rupture is known as the breaking stress.

[/rquoter]

But of course, as I have never been in a building suffering catestrophic structural failure, I have enough sense to know that this is only a guess.

 

you sure love sterotyping folks with a broad paintbrush, dontchya?

i just love it how you know the absolute truth and the rest of us are just brainwashed drones... because you say so.

btw, i loathe this administration.

 

this is true.... and you know what? i wouldn't put anything past the goons in charge of this administration.

but i dont believe that they had any direct part of 9/11, outside of being entirely complacent on an imminent terrorist attack.